Ireland Criminalizes Blasphemy

An anonymous reader writes "Another European country clamps down on free speech. From the article: 'It does seem bizarre that, in 2009, a modern European nation would seek to shield religious belief from criticism — yet that is what is happening in Ireland right now. In repealing the 1961 Defamation Act, the Irish government sought to expunge the worst excesses of Ireland's draconian laws restricting free speech, but in the process it has ended up making offending religious belief a criminal offence. Aside from a 25,000 fine (reduced from the 100,000 originally sought by the government), the new Defamation Act gives the authorities the power to stage raids on publishers: the courts may now issue a warrant authorising the police to enter, using "reasonable force," premises where they have grounds for believing there are copies of "blasphemous statements."'"

Comments

It's so very odd.....

[allaunjsilverfox2]

It's like watching V for Vendetta in real life. 0.o

Re:It's so very odd.....

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, people often wonder why the ACLU gets its panties in a knot over seemingly trivial government involvement in religious matters. This kind of shit is why.

If you give the Bible-thumping idiots an inch, they will take the field.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[Darkness404]

You place the blame at religious people, but on the other side, things like "hate speech" still follows this absurdity of lack of freedom of speech yet there is (comparatively) less uproar about it. We need freedom of speech for absolutely -everything- one thing banned from freedom of speech is one thing too many.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[Man On Pink Corner]

If it helps, don't think of agnosticism as a middle ground between the states we call "religion" and "atheism." Think of it as a middle ground between the processes of "reasoning" and "faith." As you go through the business of living, you have to stand on one side of the line or the other.

It's simply not meaningful to hide behind "agnosticism" as a position. It doesn't make you sound diplomatic, it only makes you sound cowardly and irresolute. As an example, are you agnostic about Zeus, too? No? You're pretty sure that the possibility of Zeus's existence shouldn't inform your decisions and actions in everyday life? Then you must feel the same way about whatever God(s) the religious people are trying to sell you at the moment.

All it takes for thumpers to get away with this crap is for good "agnostics" to do nothing. It's not useful to natter endlessly about the difference between gnostic and agnostic atheism. The debate is between plain old theism and plain old atheism. And it isn't being held in Internet forums, at lexicographers' conventions, or in comparative religion studies. It's being held in the legislatures, in the voting booths, and in our kids' science classes.

Seriously. It's time to pick a side and stand up for it.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[Fallen Seraph]

Ummm, in the US, hate speech IS protected speech. The only time it loses this status is when it is used to directly incite violence, such as getting people to riot, hurt others, etc. That's why the KKK, the New Black Panthers, the Westboro Baptist Church, and other pieces of shit organizations continue to operate legally within the US. I may not agree with them, and hell, I may even think that some of them seriously deserve several hours of pain and suffering, but I will fight to the death to defend their right to free speech.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[Darkness404]

Free speech for absolutely everything would mean free speech for planning and advocating genocide and murder.

Theres nothing wrong with that though. Now, if you actually -do- any of those things, yes it is wrong. But talking about it? No one gets hurt so therefore it should not be prohibited.

Free speech for absolutely everything means free speech for fraud and deception.

No, fraud can still be regulated. You are free to claim anything, but you must back them up. Contracts similarly should be free for anything, but you must not lie in them.

Free speech for absolutely everything means "fighting words" that provoke another to attack.

You attacked, you are the one to blame. I see nothing wrong with not regulating it. Words to not have the power to kill or otherwise (really) hurt someone. Therfore they should be unregulated unless dealing with a contract or an offer to trade.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You place the blame at religious people, but on the other side, things like "hate speech" still follows this absurdity of lack of freedom of speech yet there is (comparatively) less uproar about it.

There is a lot less uproar about hate speech laws than there is about censorship laws because hate speech laws are a much broader and more loosely defined category. For example, most laws that fall within that category provide harsher penalties for people convicted of conspiring to commit other violent crimes against a group they speaking out against. Some hate speech laws provide harsher penalties for people issuing threats and directly advocating/ordering violence against particular groups. They are the same tradeoff of rights we've always used when limiting free speech, that is free speech is limited when it infringes upon other people's individual rights, like the right to live.

Mind you, not all hate speech laws fit into the above category. Some of them to simply try to censor negative speech about groups, regardless of whether o not that speech directly infringes upon the rights of others. Many people do speak out about these and there have been several ACLU cases where the ACLU has fought hard against those hate speech laws.

We need freedom of speech for absolutely -everything- one thing banned from freedom of speech is one thing too many.

This is a sophomoric view. Free speech always has been limited when it comes into conflict with other rights. You don;t have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater because your free speech does not trump everyone else's safety. Your free speech is not protected if your speech is telling your underling to go shoot the shopkeeper who wouldn't pay up. Your free speech does not trump another person's right to not be threatened or even give you the right to slander or libel or falsely advertise or commit fraud.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[TrebleJunkie]

Leonard Peikoff had it right on Agnostics:

"The agnostic miscalculates. He thinks he is avoiding any position that will antagonize anybody. In fact, he is taking a position which is much more irrational than that of a man who takes a definite but mistaken stand on a given issue, because the agnostic treats arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect. He treats the arbitrary as on a par with the rational and evidentially supported. So he is the ultimate epistemological egalitarian: he equates the groundless and the proved. As such, he is an epistemological destroyer. The agnostic thinks that he is not taking any stand at all and therefore that he is safe, secure, invulnerable to attack. The fact is that his view is one of the falsest--and most cowardly--stands there can be."

Re:It's so very odd.....

[gestalt_n_pepper]

What a bunch of pompous whooey! (FYI, a strong agnostic position antagonizes just about everybody on the thiest and athiest side).
.
Agnosticism is a stand against arrogance and self-delusion and for rationality. Not only do we not know, but the question is simply not answerable in any rational way.
.
If you assume omniscient, omnipotent superbeings, all bets are off. They/It can make us believe anything. You can't know that any of your beliefs are certain and/or yours.
.
If there are no omniscient, omnipotent superbeings, you can't absolutely prove the negative, you can only accumulate increasing amounts of evidence.
.
I'm aware of non-rational experiences of "the divine" and how powerful they are (had some myself, actually), but the interpretation of being enlightened/born-again/etc. is all done though the mind. If it can be induced by chemicals or a powerful magnetic field pointed at the right spot on the skull, I'd have to question it's association with omniscient superbeings.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[10Ghz]

So, do you think it's a good thing to "regulate" discussions about various subjects, including genocide and such? Why? Who is being harmed if some people have a discussion about how to carry out a genocide? People ARE harmed if those people start going around killing others, but merely discussing something should NOT be illegal.

Hell, I have had some discussion with my friends that are about subject-matters that are illegal. Like, "how would you murder someone?". Discussing something like that should NOT be illegal, since no-one is harmed by such discussions. And no, just because we had such a discussion does not mean that we are about to kill someone.

So you are glad to live in a country that tramples on free speech. Well, good luck with that. I on he other hand would much rather live in a country where speech is actually free. Words or thoughts do not harm anyone.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[Lonewolf666]

Leonard Peikoff erred when he wrote

He treats the arbitrary as on a par with the rational and evidentially supported.

Because there is no evidence that actually disproves the existence of God. Neither is there proof God exists.
In the absence of certain knowledge, leaving the question "does God exist?" unanswered is actually the most rational position. Insisting on a yes or no is for small minds who cannot live with uncertainty ;-)

Re:It's so very odd.....

[Kenshin]

Theres nothing wrong with that though. Now, if you actually -do- any of those things, yes it is wrong. But talking about it? No one gets hurt so therefore it should not be prohibited.

AFAIK, in most places plotting murder or uttering death threats is a criminal offense.

Words to not have the power to kill or otherwise (really) hurt someone.

Absolute bullshit. There's a very old expression: The pen is mightier than the sword.

Most wars/revolutions/coups/whatever are started by talkers, people who never even step into battle.

All those idiots who strap on suicide belts are convinced to do it by someone very good with words.

Charles Manson didn't actually kill anyone, but he convinced his followers into slaughter.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[greenbird]

I just want a country with laws that treats my beliefs with respect and dignity and not have to worry about people who label would me as a "Bible-Thumping idiot" attempting to take that right away from me.

I want a country that doesn't treat your beliefs in any way, period, much less with respect and dignity. What makes you think your beliefs deserve respect and dignity? You think all religions should be treated with respect and dignity? Does that includes ones that advocate killing others that don't believe? Religious belief should be irrelevant with regards to the law not treated in some special manner.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[JerkBoB]

I don't think you know either. So I call on you, stop pretending you're omniscient: admit you're not atheist, but rather agnostic.

Strictly speaking, I think you will be hard-pressed to find very many so-called atheists who truly believe (i.e. have faith) that there is no God (in the judeo-christian sense or otherwise) or gods. Throwing this out as an argument against calling oneself Atheist is an exercise in pedantry.

I am an Atheist. Do I pretend to have iron-clad proof of the non-existence of God or gods? No. I do live my life as though it is true, however. Practically speaking, it might as well be true. It does not trouble me to assume that there is no God any more than it does to assume that there is no invisible pink unicorn standing behind me, judging my soul as I type this. It is illogical to assume otherwise! Once one opens the door to the possibility of one supernatural being, the only logical progression is that ALL beliefs based on the supernatural must potentially be true. And that's an express train to crazytown.

I used to share your discomfort with the concept of atheism vs. agnosticism... As I grew older, though, I began to see that agnosticism was a much less useful state of being. If one is truly agnostic, then one ought to feel compelled to give equal weight to all systems of knowing. I believe that accepting a personal state of functional atheism requires more up-front intellectual honesty, but in the long run produces much less cognitive dissonance.

WTF is up with the commenting system lately? All my paragraphs are smushed together, even though each is correctly bracketed within <p>tags</p>...

Re:It's so very odd.....

[anagama]

I don't know what you mean by "no evidence either way". I think the many thousands of years that have passed without actual miracles (I don't equate the improbable with the miraculous) indicates something. Plus, there are thousands of years to demonstrate that hard labor, research, trial and error, or other human efforts are capable of producing some pretty amazing feats -- pyramids to particle accelerators.

At this point in time, it is completely reasonable to expect the religious people to demonstrate at least some proof that their god can do cool shit, and I don't mean some half-assed convoluted interpretation of natural processes or something like that. I mean something like water to wine in a controlled environment -- something that would win the James Randi prize. Raise the dead. Lift a mountain.

What I do see is that humans using their brains have done amazing stuff. Humans' gods however, never do squat, and while I realize proving a negative isn't possible, at some point you don't expect it can be proven. I'm not holding my breath to get a visit from Santa, and I'm not holding my breath any gods will ever do anything. I feel confident neither exist because of the complete lack of their influence on the world (I don't count the effects put in motion by people, which are mostly bad anyway). Obviously, if confronted with actual evidence to the contrary, I'd change my mind in a heartbeat.

What is silly though, is discounting the towering evidence against the existence of gods so that somehow, the evidence that they do exist is considered equally weighty. To put this in a car analogy, religionists are like a car manufacturer who claims their car is the fastest in the world, except that every expert who has test driven the car hasn't been able to get it to go faster than a Geo Metro in any kind of driving conditions no matter how skillfully it is driven. Most people are going to think the car manufacturer's claims are bunk at that point. With religion though, we get excuses. Maybe in a particular set of circumstances with the right number of believers exerting psychic powers on the car, it would be fast. Nobody is going to buy that as valid tech spec. They do with religion though. It's crazy.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[Dr. Manhattan]

There is only proof that god didn't do X.

Allow me to point out that the list of "things that don't require a god to explain" has been growing monotonically since we've been keeping records. The total has never gone down - nothing has ever moved from the "explained without gods" to the "explained with gods" column.

(Oh, and something else to consider.)

Re:It's so very odd.....

[gnick]

This puts the Atheist in the same boat as the theist: with a belief that lacks any evidence.

You're right, but I see the situation a little differently:

Pretend you're sitting in a room with a small box. A friend walks in and asks, "So, is there a basilisk in that box?"

An atheist says, "I believe that there is no basilisk in that box. If there was, he probably would have made some kind of noise or tried to get out. But the box has been completely silent the whole time I've been sitting here. Come to think of it, I've never seen a basilisk. Based on the fact that I have no evidence that gives me any reason to assume there's a basilisk in there, I believe that there is not one. A few people have remarked that some never-before-seen critter may be in there, but I don't think they based that on anything observable and a lot of them acted kind of nuts. So, even though I may be wrong, I believe that there is no basilisk."

An agnostic says, "I'm afraid that I haven't opened the box and don't have a key. There's no way for me to know whether there's a basilisk inside it or not. Since I can't say for certain what, if anything, is in the box I can't commit as the the potential of it containing a basilisk. Somebody did speculate that there may be a basilisk in there. Somebody else said there may be a griffin. Somebody else said that there may be a cat, a vial of poison, an unstable element, and a Geiger counter. But, since the box is locked, silent, and hasn't budged since it was first found, your guess is as good as mine."

Just an off-the-cuff analogy to try to get across my thought train. Feel free to offer a better one.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[retchdog]

Bullshit. The Oxford English Dictionary (which is the last word in these matters) gives "atheist" as: 1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God; 2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him...

(added emphasis mine)

That is, although I acknowledge the lack of evidence, I am nonetheless an atheist because I live my life as though there is no god.

What you call "atheism", is somewhat more accurately described as "antitheism". Further, most of those who call themselves "agnostic" today are actually atheists. I would go further and say that most nominally-religious people are actually agnostic; you don't need to scratch very deep to find their doubts...

Re:It's so very odd.....

[Ekdar]

One of my favorite philosophy professors once mentioned something like this: I propose that there are invisible dogs everywhere around us all the time. As we move around, the dogs move out of our way. The dogs are silent and possess numerous other qualities that prevent us from ever detecting them.

Now I may ask someone, "do you believe that these invisible dogs exist?"

If someone were to respond "no" would you conclude that this person holds a belief that lacks any evidence? Would you insist that they, instead, "withhold judgement" with regard to the invisible dog issue? There is a potential entire realm of "there exists an undetectable entity E" claims that could be made, invisible dogs and supernatural creatures being examples.

But do we really lack evidence that these entities do not exist? Isn't lacking evidence that something exists evidence in itself that the thing doesn't exist? Maybe not empirical evidence, but that's another question.

Alternatively, perhaps in the invisible dog case the conclusion will be that it is not possible for there to be any evidence demonstrating either existence or lack of existence. It's still not completely clear to me that the rational course of action in that case is to "suspend judgement" rather than choosing to believe in the non-existence.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[shiftless]

EXACTLY. I get tired of hearing these idiots proclaim that I'm "really an agnostic" and that being an atheist is exactly like being a theist. No it isn't. Atheists aren't the ones making extraordinary claims here, theists are. There is nothing irrational about finding the whole God thing absurd, especially since there isn't a shred of scientific evidence in support of any supernatural deity. I admit that there could in fact be a supernatural being that we are not aware of or able to perceive, but that doesn't make me an agnostic. I'm an atheist, and there is nothing wrong or stupid about that viewpoint.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[jmpeax]

The point is that atheism is as much an act of faith as any theism.

No it isn't. Atheism is the default position. It is, simply, a case of not endorsing or subscribing to purported religious facts for which there is no evidence. Faith has nothing to do with it. Your logic doesn't make sense.

Countries are making the kind of legislation this article talks about and you don't think some rational zealotry is in order?

Seriously, people like you need to pick a side. Religion has damaged society for too long. We're so close to killing it and the last thing we need is morons like you who, through cowardice or indecision or existential angst, end up validating those insane enough to actually believe the shit they're told by their religions. People make the mistake of thinking that this is harmless philosophical debate. It isn't. Religion in all its forms is holding humanity back.

Don't you see how your friend was being rational, and was probably shocked by your inability to follow his very simple logic that, applied in any other context, you would have agreed to be sound?

I'll put it another way, care of Doug Stanhope: being an intelligent, rational. educated person, but having never come into contact with any religion, would you afford any weight to <insert religious text here>, let alone wholeheartedly believe in it, despite evidence to the contrary? Can you see what I'm saying?

Incidentally, the Zeus argument is exactly the same thing. Someone has told you something for which you are required to categorise as fact or fiction. You suggest it absurd to think that Zeus would be real (presumably because an all-powerful being seems absurd to you), but you don't find the story of a Christian god (for whom there is no evidence and serious credibility issues surrounding the text that describes it) ridiculous.

You know the only difference? When your teachers/parents/priest taught you about the latter, they drilled it into you that it was true, and they did so from such an early age that it has created enough doubt to cause you this brain attack in adulthood. Either that or you're scared of dying/being alone, yada yada. Grow up. The world needs you to stick up for what's right, not what makes you feel warm at night at the expense of others.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[devnulljapan]

The point is that atheism is as much an act of faith as any theism.

Right...in exactly the same way as not playing tennis is a sport. Atheism is a lack of faith, not an act of faith. There is no evidence for gods or faeries or santa claus; are you agnostic about faeries? If not why not? Why so sure? How about santa? How about gods? Why claim agnosticism in the face of gods but not Russell's teapot? It's an absurd cowardly accommodationist position.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[mea37]

"No it isn't. Atheism is the default position"

The default position is "I don't know". You change from that position when either (1) you have evidence (and if you have any on this matter I'd very much like to hear it), or (2) you are convinced as a matter of faith.

In all areas of science, the default position is "I don't know". Scientists do not default to saying "there is no way to make fusion reactors work" simply because they haven't found one. We do not default to "there is no unification of the natural forces", or "P != NP", or any other negative hypothesis where evidence is lacking. We call them "open problems".

When mankind does try to default to a negative proposition, he often comes off looking a bit silly. ("There is no way for a heavier-than-air machine to fly.")

The only reason atheists claim "no is the default" on the issue of a God is that they personally find "Yes" distasteful. It's a matter of faith. (Or, more cynically, rhetoric. I suppose I shouldn't assume candor.)

"Countries are making the kind of legislation this article talks about and you don't think some rational zealotry is in order?"

Too bad not everyone agrees with you about what position is "rational". Fundamentalists tend to think their religion is the only rational view, whether their religion is atheistic or not.

Zealotry in favor of atheism is no better a government policy than zealotry in favor of Christianity.

"Seriously, people like you need to pick a side."

No, people like you need to stop pushing false dichotamies and pretending that we're all out here to "take sides."

"Religion has damaged society for too long. We're so close to killing it "

LOL. Might want to fact-check that one, chief.

"through cowardice or indecision or existential angst"

As soon as you start asserting your opponents' motives, you might as well forget about reaching useful conclusions.

"would you afford any weight to <insert religious text here>,"

Acceptance or rejection of religious texts is irrelevant to the discussion. Every religious text is rejected by some theistic religion, so clearly it is not merely the domain of atheists to reject religious texts. It is in fact quite possible to reject every religious text and still be agnostic. Your failure to recognize this possibility stems only from your "us-or-them" mentallity - which by the way is the very mentality that does most of the harm you ascribe to religion.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[Man On Pink Corner]

If you are going to hold to a universe with no God and cry out for the rest of humanity to join you - you need to consider what to do next. What will be the basis for laws and justice. Who gets to decide?

Ask your dog. He's an atheist, yet he doesn't try to gobble your family up when you leave for work in the morning. Are we humans not capable of such restraint?

god dammit

[malignant_minded]

No see its ok. It's with a lowercase g so it's my god and not the real God.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Blinded by Religion

[sanosuke001]

This is the biggest reason why I can't stand religion. If you are so frightened by others' opinions as to attack them if they disagree with you then you have no right to make any decisions. It's the same with censorship. If you don't like it, ignore it.

Can we outlaw thinking for ourselves while we're at it? (/s)

Re:Blinded by Religion

[JeanPaulBob]

This is the biggest reason why I can't stand religion. If you are so frightened by others' opinions as to attack them if they disagree with you then you have no right to make any decisions. It's the same with censorship. If you don't like it, ignore it.

Can we outlaw thinking for ourselves while we're at it? (/s)

Hmm... Does broad-brushing "religion" with criticism that should be aimed at "forced religion" count as "thinking for yourself"?

I suppose it does. Sloppy, unreasonable thinking is still thinking, after all. It just doesn't deserve any more respect than what you're (rightly) criticizing.

Chilling

[Jawn98685]

...and I mean that literally. When I read that a modern western country has enacted a law that allows for the prosecution of the "crime" of "blasphemy", I got a cold chill down my spine. What's next? Imprisonment and torture for various forms of heresy?
WTF?

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice

[0xdeadbeef]

Isn't it funny how the religionists keep whining about antagonistic and mean atheists are, and how that is their primary rebuttal to the arguments of public intellectuals like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and yet, given the free hand to manipulate the government, they go and pass laws like this. They'd do it in America too, have done it in the past, if not for that pesky First Amendment and the strident efforts of "militant" atheists and civil rights organizations.

Re:Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice

[TheCarp]

Its true. They keep saying how religion is under attack... but whats so under attack?

It doesn't matter whether the issue is abortion, same sex marriage, prayer in school, its always the same broken record about how they need to "defend", and they are "under attack". Yet, are never able to actually articulate how other people having choices in life constitutes an attack on them and theirs.

Apparently its an attack on their youth because of their children were to grow up with choices, they might choose not to be boneheaded, zombie worshiping, fucktards, and THEN what would happen to the world?!?

I recently saw a facebook discussion between an old friend who went hardcore muslim and some of her friends about opening a dialog with other "people of the book" but how "we have to be sure they know we see them as wrong and they need to come to the light of allah" and all that bullshit.

All the same bullshit, all the same "we are the victim", "our way of life is under attack". All just sounding like somebody needs to grow the fuck up and realize that its a big world and not everyone is going to be duped into believing in some random set of myths about some god that you can't see, hear, touch, or taste, but assuredly, must exist.... and all the other mythological beings that you also can't see hear, touch, or taste must obviously not exist.

Yet their all powerful god can't protect them from a small number of people who aren't even organized, and couldn't care less what silly crap they waste their time with. Yes, they have a very powerful god indeed.

-Steve

Cue the next Soutpark episode!

[erroneus]

Seriously, the Southpark guys are frikken heroes when it comes to freedom of speech and expression and trampling on stupidity. They depicted Muhammad without causing riots somehow. They exposed scientology to the world for all its ridiculousness and countless other things. Southpark needs to create an answer to all of this and the spokesperson for Ireland really needs to be the Lucky Charms guy ... and/or the Irish Spring guy going around and cutting into everyone's soap.

Religion is a choice that people make. It is rooted into culture and geography and nearly all other aspects of human existence, but it is not beyond question or criticism.

All hail the flying spaghetti monster.

Re:YRO??!! Why Is This On Slashdot??

[jdgeorge]

This isn't really nerd news here, the online part of this story is ancillary to the main issue.

This isn't news for nerds or stuff that matters.

Hmmm... this might seem like "stuff that matters" to people who live in Ireland.

Ugh

[sircastor]

I'm a very religious person and this kind of stuff makes me sick. One of the foundations of my country is that it has no state-sponsored religion, or that it's not a (specific) religion-sponsored state. Governments have responsibility to protect their citizens from harm, but not at the expense of freedom. I may not agree with what you teach, what you share, what you distribute, but it is your God-given right (or as some may prefer, your natural right, or Spaghetti-given right) to believe, practice, share, and disagree. This kind of thing is a tragedy as it will hamper the rights of individuals and their ability to express themselves.

Obligatory

[MozeeToby]

I have no problem with God...

It's his fan club that I hate.

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

What I want to know is why can't we call oppression by its real name? Why do we insist on using terms like "clamping down" and "cracking down" to describe oppression? This only waters down the true reality of it, as if government should have been "clamping down" all along, but never had the time.

Let's call a spade a spade. When government attacks freedom of speech, or any natural human right, the term is oppression, not "clamping down".

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't it Ghandi who said, and I paraphrase:

"I like your Christ. It is your Christians that I do not like because they are so unlike Christ."

Re:Obligatory

[sonnejw0]

Aren't we all deterministic automotons governed by the laws of physics? How can free will exist? I think many religious followers are the first to try to claim that free will caused humanity's fall and the subsequent assholishness of people. As a neuroscientist, I don't believe in free will, but that doesn't negate the concepts of responsibility. David Hume, an early Anglo philosopher put it simply that the idea of cause-and-effect necessitates determinism, so free will (reacting to something according to your past experience) is actually determinism.

If you believe in a God and an afterlife, then what does it matter if God helps people now? The idea the God should do good things is just an excuse for Christians to be bad people.

Religion is simply a social construct that provides a community with a reason to be altruistic, altruism being the bond that makes society possible. The trouble arises when individuals turn that tool upside down and start to pervert it into an "us v them" mindset. That was the genius of Jesus and particularly Paul of Tarsus who founded a religion inclusive of all of humanity ... or Buddha ... or Krishna ... or any number of other loving religious iconoclasts or revolutionaries.

Re:Obligatory

[flaming error]

> I have it on good authority that God doesn't approve of the latter group.

What authority would that be? That "latter group" may "have it on good authority" that God doesn't approve of your group.

Just sayin'.

Re:Obligatory

[ceoyoyo]

"Aren't we all deterministic automotons governed by the laws of physics"

The laws of physics in their present form don't really allow for any strict determinism. The basis for your argument is a century or so out of date.

Re:Obligatory

[mcgrew]

Amen to that. Yesterday (Sunday) I was channel surfing, and stopped the remote on a fat man in an expensive suit who wore a ncktie that cost more than my most expensive piece of clothing, in what looked like a very opulant, expensive building, decrying generational welfare (never mind that we did away with generational welfare over ten years ago) and blamed it on the drug problems, alcoholism, broken families and crime "that is tearing apart our Christian nation". He was exhorting his followers to decry compassion and denounced charity. His message was the exact opposite of Jesus'.

The man is not a Christian. He is what Jesus called "a wolf in sheep's clothing". He is a right wing political figure disguised as a Christian preacher. His kind has converted more Christians to athiesm than all the athiests at slashdtot combined.

Oddly, the next channel I surfed to had an elderly man in a tattered suit preaching forgiveness and charity.

Re:Obligatory

[Artifakt]

The way you use the word faith seems to be the core of the problem. Would it surprise you to learn many Christians don't accept blind faith like you are describing either?

I'm going to do a big paraphrase of the Bible here. People disagreeing with this are certainly welcome to read the original and offer their opinions in place of this one:

      Saint Paul (arguably at least a pretty mainstream Christian), made an argument in one of his letters. He discussed people who were telling the local Christians that there couldn't be eternal life for the soul, and he pointed out rational reasons to believe there could. He mentioned cases they all knew of people in that community who had become diseased or feeble with age, but whose minds had gotten sharper, not been dragged down by their health. He cited people who had some very poor physical health, but were focused on helping other people to the point where their spiritual conduct had improved even as their health worsened, rather than being dragged down by their bodies. So, he said in essence, 'you have evidence that what happens to the mind and the spirit is not governed by the body, and you should keep your faith, because you have this evidence to confirm it.'. That's how the word faith gets used at some points in the Bible, particularly the New Testament.

      Paul couldn't demonstrate that there was a soul that actually survived death, so he urged faith. But he could demonstrate two things. 1. Some subtler parts of the human being, like their rational minds, or their choice to focus only on their immediate physical survival or still treat other people's lives as important, weren't always governed by the health of the body. 2. The people who claimed to have a nice, tidy, rational argument that the mind was always yoked to the body were cherry picking examples to support their opinions, ignoring counterexamples, and therefore were themselves making a leap of faith to get to their conclusion.

Step 2

[JJJK]

I guess now it's up to the religious leaders to redefine what "blasphemy" means. We'll see what they come up with...

So when a religious person and an atheist meet and say something like "I find your views completely ridiculous" at the same time to each other then the religious person can sue the atheist but not vice versa?
Reminds me of this

Re:Ok, really?

[Darkness404]

You must have mistaken me for European. I'm American and I'm honestly sick and tired of the government destroying every single shred of freedom in the name of "safety". Sure, parts of Europe are even more messed up than the US, but the US doesn't have to emulate Europe and neither does Europe have to emulate the US. The US should give its citizens its freedom back, rather than keep destroying it.

does that make Ireland a religion-free zone?

[jipn4]

Islam is blasphemous to Christianity, Christianity and Islam are blasphemous to Jews, Catholicism is blasphemous to protestants, and protestantism is blasphemous to Catholics. Does that mean the Irish can (finally!) kick the entire lot off the island?

And why should Christians be allowed to insult atheists with impunity?

Or does this law only apply to protect big, arrogant sky-god religions? Oh, why do I even ask, it's Ireland we're talking about.

Blasphemy is NOT "hate speech"

[ivan_w]

Blasphemy is not "hate speech"

Blasphemy targets the deity in which religious people believe, NOT the people themselves.

Now, I am quite convinced that if any supernatural being existed, it would be quite capable of handling "blasphemy" gracefully, which may be untrue for cultural/religous/lifestyle groups - which the "hate speech" laws in certain countries attempt to protect.

Nonetheless, I am also opposed to those anti "hate speech" laws since it both creates a breach in freedom of speech - but - even more dangerous - segregates those groups unto special status - and - de-facto - creates a rift between group of individuals.

To push my point further, when a country promotes a law prohibiting "hate speech" towards - say - homosexuals, they are specifically stating that homosexual have *different* rights than heterosexuals ! and *I* believe this is wrong.

--Ivan

er...um... the Liberals are no better, yunno

[Orleron]

They may not make laws against blasphemy...but politically correct speech and other things that "hurt my feelings", they take the cake on that.
Therefore, I'd say it's not religious zealots OR liberal idiots that are responsible alone, but rather people in general who fall to the extremes.

Do you follow the news at all

[SmallFurryCreature]

Theres nothing wrong with that though. Now, if you actually -do- any of those things, yes it is wrong. But talking about it? No one gets hurt so therefore it should not be prohibited.

South Africa, last year. Incitement to hatred against immigrants: result, countless attacks and weeks of unrest as the locals attacked immigrants and forced them to flee for their lives.

Rwanda, several years ago. Incitement to hatred against one "race": result, 1 million dead, many hacked to bits as they sought shelter. In a few weeks they killed then half a year of all the concentration camps of WW2.

Germany, Crystal Night. incitement to hatred against jews. Result: several dead, buildings burned and the prelude to the holocaust.

There are lots of other examples, and you DARE to say that incitement to hatred should not be a crime.

That is EXACTLY the same as saying that offering a contract on someones life should not be a crime because it is only words.

Read a book. Any book. Just once and grow up mate.

Re:Do you follow the news at all

[Darkness404]

There are lots of other examples, and you DARE to say that incitement to hatred should not be a crime.

In most cases, they require a martyr to actually go beyond the belief stage. Just look at the internet, you can find statements to back up any belief, yet its only information. Look at the development of religions, especially Christianity, the more it was persecuted, the larger it grew and the more rapidly while today it isn't in a rapid phase of growth due to increased religious tolerance. Have you not heard of the Streisand effect? Basically the more you try to censor "hate" speech the further and more radical it gets. You only encourage "hate" speech by attempting to stop it. For example, on the internet you can find all sorts of crazy theries such as that contrails in the sky are actually mind altering chemicals ( http://educate-yourself.org/ct/ ) that Paul McCartney really died in the '60s ( http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/fc1.html ) and other more absurd conspiracy theories. However, they get lost in the sea of information that is the internet. The same thing happens with "hate" speech when it is not criminalized.

That is EXACTLY the same as saying that offering a contract on someones life should not be a crime because it is only words.

If it was a legal contract, the person was actually hired and really was going to commit murder, it is not a free speech violation to apprehend them. Signing the contract and agreeing to go through with it similarly is not a free speech violation if you get caught.

Speech is action too: analog, not digital

[gobbo]

Words do not have the power to kill or otherwise (really) hurt someone. Therfore they should be unregulated unless dealing with a contract or an offer to trade.

I so wish you were right. The problem is that we don't want to acknowledge the elephant in the room... propaganda works, on enough people to make a difference. Ask a Rwandan or Bosnian, or study Himmler (who famously claimed that it was the loudspeaker that conquered Germany). Sometimes, during genocide, it's hard for people to separate the words from the machete; one is an extension of the other.

I don't mean that in any mystical sense, I'm thinking of the stanford prison experiment etc. The line between speech and a decision to act disappears. Your conviction (and my wishes) about the independence of speech from action is an abstraction, since it requires humans who are uniformly well-schooled to be proud individualists, skeptics, and responsible citizens.

Perhaps we can find a functional way to make political speech a social contract that is bound to regulation like other transactions... after all, genocide relies on fraudulent and deceptive claims. The problem always resides with who gets to determine the truth.

Re:God hates censorship.

[Fumus]

According to the new law, each religious person can be fined as each and every religion is blasphemous to every other, so atheists will simply shut up and watch as all religions sue themselves out of existence :p

Re:How is this different from "hate speech"

[CannonballHead]

Here we go again, though:

as they are inherent violations of human rights

Who gets to define what human rights I have?

I agree, female mutilation isn't OK. Incidentally, it's the "Well it's their culture, we shouldn't tell them it's wrong" opinions tend to be less on the "Let's base things on the Bible/God/whatever" side and more on the "We need to base things on the way they have been in history" side.

Religious censorship or non-religious-censorship isn't OK because their culture allows it. I agree. That's a bad basis of "OK" and "not OK." On the other hand, saying it's NOT ok simply because YOU think it's a violation of these "inherent" (inherent to what?) human rights doesn't seem like a logical argument either. Rights are things that are given. No, all rights are not given "by God." But rights ARE given by "the government." Or taken away. Etc. Whether or not they government SHOULD give/take those rights is what we're discussing, thus the "OK" has to be based on something higher than human government... so here we are again: who decides?

And ... why is Ireland's basis for their decision better or worse than yours?

Again, I'm not advocating for or against the law, but arguing that the position taken by most "This is awful!" people seems like it tends to be based on a vague "this violates my inalienable rights" idea with no explanation of where these "inalienable" rights came from.

Re:How is this different from "hate speech"

[Just Some Guy]

Again, I'm not advocating for or against the law, but arguing that the position taken by most "This is awful!" people seems like it tends to be based on a vague "this violates my inalienable rights" idea with no explanation of where these "inalienable" rights came from.

That pretty well sums up the differences of our opinions. I agree with Jefferson: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inherent rights that all people are born with, period. Contrary to your position, I believe that government can only restrict rights and can't grant new ones. Given a default state of freedom, after all, where can a government do other than agree to restrict you the least amount necessary for society to function correctly? With this in mind, I truly can't think of any right more fundamentally important than freedom to speak your opinion. If it's illegal for me to say that I disagree with something, then nothing else matters, does it?

Honestly, I'm a little horrified to find people in the Western world who think restrictions on religious freedom are tolerable and maybe even good. As I said, if I want to speak against Islam or Scientology or the FSM, then I have to permit others to speak against my God. There are no circumstances in which it's acceptable for the government to declare one religion as good and protected above others.